I. Call to Order
Chair Don Boileau called the meeting to order at 3:03. This meeting is a continuation
meeting of the May 1, 2002 Faculty Senate meeting.

II. Announcements – Don Boileau
The Faculty Senate will have representation on the Board of Trustees of the
George Mason University Foundation. If House Bill 538 passes next year, the
faculty will have representation on the Board of Visitors.

There has been overlapping of teaching schedules and department meetings during
the Faculty Senate meetings this year. The Faculty Senate would appreciate Dean,
Directors, and Chairs taking the Senate meetings into consideration when preparing
their scheduling of classes and meetings.

Senators Larry Bowen, Bobbi Conti, and Pat Story will be retiring from the University.

III. New Business
A change in the agenda was made to accommodate senators who may have to leave
the meeting early.

Election of the Chair of the Faculty Senate
The Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate nominated Professor James Bennett
for the position of Chair of the Faculty Senate. With no other nominations,
a motion was made and seconded to close the
nominations and cast a unanimous ballot. James Bennett was unanimously elected
for the 2002-2003 term as Chair of the Faculty Senate. The first official act
of the Chair will be to lead the graduation procession on Saturday, May 18,
2002.

Academic Policies Committee Motion
Motion: The term of the Task Force on Teaching Evaluation be extended
through the Fall 2002 semester. Pat Story reported the Committee is doing important
work and believes that most members of the Committee will continue to serve.
Stanley Zoltek suggested the creation of an on-going committee be created to
oversee teacher evaluations. The motion passed.

International Dual Degrees
Esther Elstun reported that senators were sent an e-mail message concerning
a recommendation on international dual degrees. Yehuda Lukacs has received three
inquiries recently about such programs. A discussion followed which clarified
the point that these students would receive two degrees. It was moved
and seconded to send this recommendation back to the Committee.

Message from the Provost, Peter Stearns (delivered by Sheryl Beach):
“I regret not being able to attend Don Boileau's last meeting as chair
of the Senate. But I would like to extend my thanks and appreciation to Don
for three years of wise and constructive leadership, and for the personal commitment
involved. The University, as well as the Senate, is better for his term of service.”

At its meeting on 1 May 2002, the Senate voted to postpone action on the Committee's
recommendation concerning minors. Before devoting further time and effort to
this matter, the Committee will seek a clarification of the status of the recently
created Council on Minors, as well as specific instructions from the Senate
concerning how it wishes the Committee to proceed.

Work on the policy issues concerning minors was unusually time-consuming, with
the result that two major items of business begun this spring could not be completed
and will be carried over to next year: (1) the university's residence requirement
and related policy issues, and (2) a Student Senate-proposed change in the university's
drop and withdrawal policies. A third item, which came to the Committee late
in the current semester, addresses the question of GMU participation, with accredited
universities in other countries, in academic or professional programs that lead
to the award of dual degrees. At today's meeting,
the Committee will seek Senate endorsement in principle of the concept of international
dual degrees and our participation in programs leading to them. If closure is
not reached at today's meeting, this matter will also be carried over to next
year. Finally, if the Senate adopts the Committee's motion to continue the ad
hoc Task Force on Teacher/Course Evaluation through the fall semester 2002,
the Committee will continue to interact with that group.

Facilities Support Services and Libraries Committee — Stanley
Zoltek
The Committee was assigned only one action item by O&O. The Committee was
asked to review complaints by both students and faculty regarding the production
and management of course material packets.

This year, for the first time, the distribution of course material packets was
handled by the Bookstore and not the University Copy Shop. Some faculty felt
that this resulted in an inordinate increase in the cost of the same course
packets that they used the prior semester. Also, it was reported by students
that while they were able to locate the textbooks for their courses, often they
were not able to find the related course packets.

T o better understand the reported problems and to help resolve them, the Committee
brought together representatives of the Bookstore and Student Services. At the
meeting the Bookstore representatives explained the increase in the cost of
the course packets and agreed to place additional signs to better indicate the
location of course packets. While some of the increase in costs seemed unavoidable,
the Committee strongly suggested to the Bookstore that all efforts be made to
curtail future increases.

The Committee met an additional four times during the academic year. At two
of the meetings, John Zenelis, Director of Libraries, reported on the impact
of budget cuts on library acquisitions and facilities. He also reviewed with
and requested feedback from the Committee on future library construction and
renovation plans. The remaining meetings were devoted to reviewing and ranking
the Fenwick Fellow applications.

Faculty Matters Committee — Joe Scimecca
Senate Faculty Matters Committee Final Report
During the academic year 2001-02, the Faculty Senate Faculty Matters Committee
dealt with the following items:
1. Published and distributed the annual Administrative Survey results for AY
2000-2001.
2. Distributed the questionnaire for the Administrative Survey for AY 2001-2002.
3. Handled three summer school appeals; two were resolved. A committee will
be established to investigate the third, which concerns uniform payment for
lab courses.
4. Looked into the issue of intellectual property rights. This inquiry will
be ongoing during the next year.
5. Began inquiry into different payment schemes for chairing BIS and MIS projects.
6. Began inquiry into having raises (in years they are given) begin with the
first September paycheck and not the last paycheck in December.
7. Provided input into the Senate response to the BOV Rewards and Incentives
Draft Report.

Organization and Operations – Estela Blaisten-Barojas
Ten items of business were submitted this year. Six of them went to the Academic
Policies Committee, three to the Faculty Matters Committee, and one to the Organization
and Operations Committee. The business load was about half of what had been
logged in the previous three years.

The single item routed to O&O concerned a change in the type of student
representative to the General Education Committee. It was agreed with the respective
student organizations that the student representative will be appointed by the
Student Government and ratified by the Student Senate.

Additionally, the committee recommended to the Executive Committee and the Senate
that the process of revising the Bylaws be postponed until Fall 2002. The Committee
revised the Senate website and adopted the version currently in place since
October 2001. The Committee worked out the Senate seat allocation that was presented
at the March meeting and adopted by the Senate.

Nominations Committee – Rick Coffinberger
Nominations Committee Final Report
At the beginning of the academic year 2001-02, the Faculty Senate Nominations
Committee fulfilled it charge as enumerated in the Senate’s by-laws. Specifically,
the Committee provided the Senate membership a slate of nominees for election
to fill vacancies on all Senate Standing Committees (other than the Nominations
Committee), as well as all University Standing Committees. Thereafter, the Committee
worked closely with the Senate Chair to prepare additional slates as needed
to fill other committee vacancies on an ad hoc basis.

University Standing Committee Reports

Academic Appeals Committee – Suzanne Slayden
University Academic Appeals Committee 2001-2002 Year-End Report
Members: Julie Christensen (Provost's Office, ex officio), James Bennett, Connie
Hylton, J. E. Lin, Robert Nadeau, Suzanne Slayden (Chair).
The Committee met four times this year. The Committee has been discussing the
following items:
1. The criteria for and duration of GMU undergraduate dismissal policies;
2. The criteria for academic warning, probation, and suspension; and
3. The refinement of the charge of the committee to clarify responsibility for
final
disposition of appeals at the university level.

The current criteria for warning, probation, suspension, and dismissal as they
appear in the current catalog were approved by the Faculty Senate in Spring
1987 and amended in Spring 1988. Some of the consequences of these criteria
are now viewed as undesirable:

The terms and conditions of student re-admission to GMU after dismissal are
not explicit and could be inconsistently applied in the various academic units.
1,196 students have been dismissed from GMU since 1996
1,196 received a first suspension
40 received a second suspension
It appears that a second suspension is underutilized as a retention device,
and
students proceed rather rapidly from a first suspension to dismissal because
they fit the "dismissal criteria."

Among the "dismissal criteria" is a table of student GPA's and credit
hours showing the minimum acceptable values which depend on "the number
of cumulative quality credits earned at the university plus credits transferred
from other institutions or obtained by testing." The attached chart shows
the effect on the academic dismissal rate of transfer students when using total
credit hours (transfer hours + GMU quality hours) instead of GMU quality hours
only. A transfer student can be dismissed with a higher GPA, but the same number
of GMU quality hours as a non-transfer student and a transfer student can be
dismissed with fewer quality hours but the same GP A as non-transfer students.

The committee is in the process of formulating solutions to the above-mentioned
problems, which will be recommended to the Faculty Senate.

Admissions Committee — Alok Berry
Students are being admitted with all-time-high SAT scores.

Effective Teaching Committee
The Effective Teaching Committee did not meet.

Committee on Communications with the BOV — Richard Rubenstein
The Committee on Communications with the BOV did not meet.

The major charge of the Committee is to foster dialogue and better communication
with our state legislature, with the ultimate goal of promoting good will and
appreciation of George Mason University through its Faculty. To this end, the
Committee held a luncheon with Delegate Kenneth Plum in the summer of 2001 and
a luncheon with Delegates Vince Callahan, Harry Parrish,
and Chap Peterson in the fall. Topics discussed were the underfunding of GMU,
the problems of space, large classrooms, and lack of lab equipment.

Another major item of focus for the Committee was HB538, the bill proposed by
Delegate Steve Landes, calling for faculty representation on governing boards
of institutions of higher education. Passing the bill has been a major goal
for the entire Faculty Senate of Virginia (FSV) and the EARC has played a major
role in these activities. Through the aforementioned luncheons and through letters
to the Northern Virginia representatives, the EARC managed to garner support
for the bill and was a co-sponsor of the bill. The bill was passed by the House
Education Committee and by the House itself but, unfortunately, was voted down
by the Senate Committee. Efforts to get faculty representation on Board of Visitors,
however, will continue.

The work of the Committee (and that of Senate Chair Don Boileau) also led to
a bill sponsored by Delegate Callahan titled “HB 28: Higher education;
expectation of privacy in electronic communications.” This bill was tabled
until the 2003 session.

Finally, the Committee — through its representatives on the Faculty Senate
of Virginia, Esther Elstun and Hal Gortner — participated in the activities
of the FSV, including two meetings and e-mail communications.

Grievance Committee — Linda Kalof
The University Grievance Committee considered one grievance during the 2001-2002
academic year. This Grievance was filed by a research (non-instructional) faculty
member in one unit against members in another unit. The Committee considered
the allegations and found a prima facie case. However, when the Committee
requested additional information from the defendants, the request was denied.
The defendants claimed that research faculty are not covered by the GMU. The
following are two relevant paragraphs regarding this issue from the George Mason
University Research Personnel Policies and Procedures in the “Faculty
282 Information Guide” (htm:/ /www gmu.edu/facstaff/research.html):

"Research personnel are considered an employee subgroup of faculty; they
are not instructional faculty. Consequently, research personnel are not covered
by the policies and procedures of the Faculty Handbook. However, the
‘Faculty Information Guide’ of the Faculty Handbook should
be referenced for administrative procedures. In addition, they are subject to
the rules and regulations of the university."

"Research personnel have access to university rules and regulations with
respect to due process and related issues (i.e., sexual harassment, equity,
etc.). Lack of available funding for research positions is a non-grievable issue.
Research personnel are not covered by the Virginia Personnel Act, which covers
classified state employees. In addition, research personnel are not covered
under the Faculty Handbook, although the administrative procedures
contained within the ‘Faculty Information Guide’ are applicable."

The charge of the University Standing Grievance Committee (http://www.gmu.edu/facstaff/senate/CHARGES.HTM#gr)
is to "1) Investigate faculty grievances which involve faculty from more
than one local academic unit. Issues of investigation include alleged infringements
of academic freedom, alleged unfair or inappropriate conditions of employment
and exclude retention,
promotion and tenure appeals, 2) Investigate faculty grievances which are not
addressed by, or do not fall within the purview of the grievance committee of
the pertinent local academic unit, 3) Investigate faculty grievances for local
academic units that do not have grievance committees established, or when a
grievance committee does not conform with the written procedures of the local
academic unit."

The Committee queried a member of the Faculty Senate and several university
administrators regarding this issue. Although the Committee still finds ambiguity
in the language relating to this issue, it appears that, at this time, research
(non-instructional) faculty are not covered by the Faculty Handbook and are
not entitled to a grievance procedure. The grievant was so informed and was
provided with the relevant correspondence.

It is the Committee's sense that all faculty members, including research personnel,
should have access to university rules and regulations with respect to due process
and related issues. It is the Committee's recommendation that the Faculty Senate
consider resolutions to remedy this problem. In particular, the Faculty Senate
should determine the process that will best provide research personnel with
due process and, therefore, do not have a right to file a grievance. The allegations
contained in the grievance were not addressed in the defendants’ response.

A specific recommendation is to include language in the Faculty Handbook and
the “Faculty Information Guide” that research personnel should be
entitled to file grievances under the Faculty Handbook, and that those grievances
be within the jurisdiction of the University Grievance Committee if they cross
unit lines. The Faculty Senate is asked to take action on this matter.

Minority and Diversity Issues Committee — Tojo Thatchenkery
The Committee met twice. Since Asian students make up the largest population
at George Mason, the Committee is currently seeking information on what percentage
of the Classified Staff are Asian. They have also requested data on what percentage
of minority faculty received tenure and also what percentage of faculty who
are minorities have attained full-professor status.

Non-traditional, Interdisciplinary, and Adult Learning Committee
No report was given by the Non-traditional, Interdisciplinary, and Adult Learning
Committee.

1) A document showing summaries concerning salary information broken out by
individual schools within the University. The schools represented in the Table
are ordered by overall median salary. Note that the results in the table are
NOT adjusted for factors such as experience or length of service. Therefore,
we should be careful in comparing units because some of the differences between
units may be related to differences in the variables not adjusted for. Salary
consists of base salary converted to nine-month appointment, plus scholar stipends,
plus grant stipends. The school codes are:
VPA College of Visual and Performing Arts
GSE Graduate School of Education
CAS College of Arts and Sciences
NHS College of Nursing and Health Science
ITE School of Information Technology and Engineering
SCS School of Computational Sciences
SOM School of Management
LAW School of Law
SPP School of Public Policy
RKC Robinson Professors, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Studies, Krasnow
Institute, and Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (created to avoid
exposing individual salaries in these small units).

Salary Summaries for 2001 Salaries at GMU

SCHOOL

RANK

NO

MEAN

MEDIAN

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM

STD DEV

VPA

ALL
Asst
Assoc
Prof
Emnt

26
12
7
6
1

$57,419
$40,768
$62,313
$75,841
$112,446

$54,154
$39,744
$55,620
$72,037
$112,446

$27,450
$27,450
$49,162
$60,390
$112,446

$112,446
$62,925
$93,000
$95,000
$112,446

$21,738
$7,985
$15,471
$14,945

GSE

ALL
Asst
Assoc
Prof

70
21
30
19

$68,022
$50,244
$65,791
$91,194

$63,985
$49,500
$65,612
$91,393

$45,542
$45,542
$50,242
$59,037

$119,006
$59,229
$81,070
$119,006

$17,634
$3,189
$6,854
$12,699

CAS

ALL
Asst
Assoc
Prof
Emnt

311
62
130
113
6

$69,038
$48,878
$63,591
$83,891
$115,638

$65,183
$47,655
$63,011
$80,527
$120,649

$37,937
$37,937
$40,000
$56,578
$88,557

$163,648
$86,364
$102,186
$163,648
$134,896

$19,113
$7,963
$8,776
$16,579
$18,124

NHS

ALL
Asst
Assoc
Prof

24
7
11
6

$70,207
$56,401
$71,773
$83,445

$69,977
$56,350
$70,000
$82,069

$48,946
$48,946
$65,029
$72,214

$98,206
$60,545
$86,080
$98,206

$12,323
$3,946
$5,829
$11,372

ITE

ALL
Asst
Assoc
Prof
Emnt

78
14
27
33
4

$94,875
$68,493
$80,725
$110,837
$151,040

$88,711
$68,000
$79,820
$108,118
$148,807

$62,000
$62,000
$63,180
$83,366
$127,948

$178,600
$77,000
$102,318
$161,947
$178,600

$25,565
$3,483
$8,531
$18,353
$20,973

SCS

ALL
Asst
Assoc
Prof
Emnt

18
1
9
7
1

$95,570
$75,600
$76,972
$115,904
$140,580

$89,400
$75,600
$74,291
$122,482
$140,580

$66,100
$75,600
$66,100
$91,600
$140,580

$156,027
$75,600
$101,000
$156,027
$140,580

$27,237

$11,003
$23,134

SOM

ALL
Asst
Assoc
Prof
Emnt

33
12
12
7
2

$93,993
$84,629
$85,555
$110,608
$142,651

$90,128
$83,250
$84,836
$108,073
$142,651

$71,657
$77,490
$71,657
$87,614
$120,833

$164,468
$95,000
$101,562
$145,000
$164,468

$20,446
$6,762
$10,207
$19,157
$30,855

LAW

ALL
Asst
Assoc
Prof
Emnt

29
4
8
13
4

$106,917
$80,038
$96,857
$116,798
$121,801

$105,441
$79,750
$99,475
$111,500
$122,448

$71,500
$77,500
$71,500
$87,916
$82,309

$160,000
$83,150
$128,000
$139,655
$160,000

$23,155
$2,734
$17,835
$15,959
$35,832

SPP

ALL
Asst
Assoc
Prof
Emnt

23
2
7
10
4

$103,978
$56,530
$68,290
$116,919
$157,803

$110,210
$56,530
$69,525
$113,719
$164,236

$52,322
$52,322
$62,826
$100,053
$112,695

$190,043
$60,737
$72,494
$150,000
$190,043

$37,998
$5,950
$3,840
$14,154
$32,440

RKC

ALL
Asst
Assoc
Prof
Emnt

26
2
4
6
14

$113,111
$51,694
$73,621
$121,616
$129,522

$112,206
$51,694
$73,626
$108,694
$127,204

$45,000
$45,000
$65,000
$90,946
$107,876

$192,273
$58,388
$82,231
$192,273
$164,388

$33,866
$9,467
$7,791
$37,160
$16,432

2) A copy of a report on salary equity submitted by the Chair of the Committee
(Dr. Miller) to the University Equity Office. This report is not an official
product of this Committee, but has been reviewed by the Committee and is sent
on to the Faculty Senate for its review and enlightenment. In this report, it
is noted that there are no glaring salary equity problems at the overall university
level for Instructional Full-Time Faculty.

Salary Equity at GMU for Nonrestricted Instructional Faculty
In spring of 1996, several reports on salary equity at George Mason University
(GMU) were issued. This report updates those reports using salary data from
December 2001. The previous reports concentrated on salary equity between female
and male faculty members. This report will also look at salary equity for various
race/ethnic groups within the GMU faculty.

In the previous reports, the necessity of adjusting for important “human
capital” variables was explained. We will review that necessity here as
well using the example from the previous report. Consider two hypothetical organizations
in which salary is determined by at most two things — department and gender.
The organization-wide summary measures are:

Hypothetical Organization A
Females: 45 employees with a mean salary of $31,000
Males: 45 employees with a mean salary of $39,000
Females make up 50% of all employees but only 15% of the top 20 salaries, only
25% of the top 40 salaries, but 85% of the bottom 20 salaries, and 75% of the
bottom 40 salaries.

Hypothetical Organization B
Females: 45 employees with a mean salary of $39,000
Males: 45 employees with a mean salary of $39,000
Females make up 50% of all employees and 85% of the top 20 salaries, 75% of
the top 40 salaries, but only 15% of the bottom 20 salaries, and only 25% of
the bottom 40 salaries.

It would appear that there might be a considerable disadvantage for females
in the salary structure at Organization A, but either no advantage or an advantage
for females at Organization B. When we look at the distribution of salaries
broken down by department, a different picture emerges.

In Organization A, salary is determined only by department of employment. The
observed differences in the organization-wide summary measures are entirely
caused by the concentration of females in the lower paying departments. If assignment
to departments is done by the organization in a gender-neutral manner then the
difference in overall mean salaries does not indicate a true disparity. (It
is not necessarily a given at all organizations that such assignment is made
in a gender-neutral manner. However, at GMU, department is a proxy for field
of expertise of the faculty member. The university can hardly assign a chemist
to the English Department. Hence, department will be an important variable to
use in adjustment.)

In Organization B, salaries are determined by department and by gender. In each
department, males make $8K more than females. However, the concentration of
females in higher paying departments conceals this disparity when the organization-wide
measures are considered. The salary details of these hypothetical organizations
are given in Table 1.

Table 1: Salary Structures for Two Hypothetical Organizations

Organization A

Organization B

Department

Females

Males

Department

Females

Males

A

N: 9 Sal: $23K

N: 1 Sal: $23K

A

N: 9 Sal: $47K

N: 1 Sal: $55K

B

N: 8 Sal: $26K

N: 2 Sal: $26K

B

N: 8 Sal: $44K

N: 2 Sal: $52K

C

N: 7 Sal: $29K

N: 3 Sal: $29K

C

N: 7 Sal: $41K

N: 3 Sal: $49K

D

N: 6 Sal: $32K

N: 4 Sal: $32K

D

N: 6 Sal: $38K

N: 4 Sal: $46K

E

N: 5 Sal: $35K

N: 5 Sal: $35K

E

N: 5 Sal: $35K

N: 5 Sal: $43K

F

N: 4 Sal: $38K

N: 6 Sal: $38K

F

N: 4 Sal: $32K

N: 6 Sal: $40K

G

N: 3 Sal: $41K

N: 7 Sal: $41K

G

N: 3 Sal: $29K

N: 7 Sal: $37K

H

N: 2 Sal: $44K

N: 8 Sal: $44K

H

N: 2 Sal: $26K

N: 8 Sal: $34K

I

N: 1 Sal: $47K

N: 9 Sal: $47K

I

N: 1 Sal: $23K

N: 9 Sal: $31K

Statistical Rationale for Adjustment:
When we study salary equity and wish to discover whether gender or race/ethnic
disparities exist, we use the process of adjustment. We ask the question: “Is
there any relation between gender and salary?” However, this question
must be answered in a context. That context is defined by which variables we
use for adjustment. In this case, the variables used for adjustment define a
model that sets a salary structure in a discrimination-free environment. Then
we see if adding gender or race/ethnic variables can substantially increase
the predictive power of the model. If adding gender or race/ethnic variables
does increase the predictive power to a statistically significant degree, then
we would find a statistically significant disparity relating to gender or race/ethnicity.

With regard to statistical validity, the variables not used for adjustment are
assumed not to vary systematically with gender or race/ethnicity. For instance,
we will not use publication record as an adjustment variable because it is not
in the database we have available. Thus, we must assume that this aspect of
faculty evaluation does not vary in a systematic way between genders or race/ethnic
groups. This appears to us to be reasonable assumption.

We must interpret all results in terms of what variables were used (or not used)
for adjustment. For example, a number which was often cited in 1996 was the
approximately $11,000 difference between the average male salary and average
female salary at GMU in 1995. This was a real difference. There was nothing
wrong with the arithmetic used to compute it. However, if we are to give it
any intrinsic meaning, we must interpret it in light of the adjustment process
described above. In this case, we are adjusting for no variables. Thus, if we
give any meaning to this difference in terms of salary inequity, we are postulating
a discrimination-free model where salaries for all faculty should be roughly
equal, regardless of any qualifications, rank, experience, or anything else.
Furthermore, if we wish the model to be valid from a statistical point of view,
we must assume that the other potential variables which could have been used
for adjustment in 1996 did not vary between males and females or were not related
to salary, which was demonstrably false.

Variables Available for Use in Our Analyses:
The variables available to be used for our analyses are the following: base
salary; additions to salary for eminent scholar, chair, director, and grant
(a form of salary supplement used for only one faculty member); fte; length
of contract (9 or 12 month); division (school); department; rank; highest degree;
year of highest degree; hire date; date of highest rank; type of contract (research
or instructional); status of appointment (restricted, tenure track, or tenured);
whether the individual had ever been a dean or administrator (other than department
chair); gender and ethnicity.

For the salary studies given in this report, we considered only individuals
with nonrestricted instructional appointments. Subsequent reports may deal with
other individuals.

We used as the dependent variable in our analyses the log of salary, where salary
was computed as follows: scale base salary to one fte and 9 month contract and
add supplements not including chair nor director stipends. We computed degree
time as years since highest degree, gmutime as time from date of hire, and ranktime
as time from acquisition of highest rank.

Indicator variables are variables which take the value one if a certain condition
is met and a value of zero otherwise. We created an indicator variable for gender
(value one for females). We created one indicator variable for each of the following
race/ethnicity group: Asian-Americans, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans,
and nonresident aliens. (It is our understanding that the nonresident alien
group is a “protected class” by law and that the university is required
to designate individuals in this group by this label. An individual in the nonresident
alien group might otherwise have been classified into some other race/ethnic
group had the individual been a U. S. citizen.)

We created an indicator variable for each academic rank (assistant, associate,
full, and eminent professors). We created an indicator variable for each degree
(masters, specialist (such as JD), doctorate). We created an indicator variable
for having tenure. We created an indicator variable for having ever been a dean
or administrator. We then used the variables described above to make a salary
study. We used multiple regression and comparison of similarly situated individuals
as in the study of 1995 salaries.

Comparison of 1995 and 2001 Overall Measures:
We begin by comparing the overall measures from the 1995 data and the new 2001
data. In the 1995 data, the overall summary information for gender and race/ethnic
groups was as shown in Table 2. (The information about race/ethnic groups was
not presented in our 1996 reports.)

Table 2: Summary Information for 1995 Salaries

Group

No (Percent)

Arithmetic Mean

Geometric Mean

Females

150 (27%)

$55,082

$53,878

Males

398 (73%)

$66,028

$63,128

Asian-Americans

32 (6%)

$60,809

$58,746

African-Americans

21 (4%)

$58,790

$56,708

Hispanic-Americans

10 (2%)

$58,730

$56,354

Nonresident Aliens

20 (4%)

$54,368

$53,031

Whites

465 (85%)

$63,841

$61,178

The summary information for the 2001 salary data is given in Table 3.

Table 3: Summary Information for 2001 Salaries

Group

No (Percent)

Arithmetic Mean

Geometric Mean

Females

203 (32%)

$67,085

$64,721

Males

435 (68%)

$83,787

$79,477

Asian-Americans

41 (6%)

$74,589

$70,139

African-Americans

28 (4%)

$73,590

$70,479

Hispanic-Americans

16 (3%)

$73,967

$70,071

Nonresident Aliens

12 (2%)

$71,350

$70,038

Whites

541 (85%)

$79,311

$75,235

The first thing we notice in comparing Tables 2 and 3 is that the gap between
females and males has increased from $9,250 (in geometric mean) for 1995 to
$14,756 for 2001. The gaps between whites and most of the other race/ethnic
groups have increased as well. We might consider whether these increases simply
reflect inflation or whether they may be related to other causes. The easiest
thing to check is whether there are differential raises for faculty who are
present in both data sets. The mean percent raises for each group are given
in Table 4 for the 381 faculty who were present both in the 1995 and 2001 data
bases.

Table 4: Mean Percent Raise 1995 - 2001

Group

No (Percent)

Mean

Females

96 (25%)

36.3%

Males

285 (75%)

34.6%

Asian-Americans

26 (7%)

37.8%

African-Americans

13 (3%)

34.5%

Hispanic-Americans

7 (2%)

33.0%

Nonresident Aliens

2 (1%)

33.2%

Whites

333 (87%)

34.9%

We see in Table 4 that there are very small (and statistically insignificant)
differences in the mean percent raises for the various groups. We see that the
mean percent raise is, in fact, slightly higher for females than for males.
Hence, the change in the difference in unadjusted mean salaries is not due to
difference in raises for faculty members who remained at GMU. We note that it
is no more reasonable to compare unadjusted mean salaries in 2001 that it was
in 1995. Hence, we now proceed to analyze the 2001 salary structure in a manner
similar to that in which we analyzed the 1995 salary structure.

Multiple Regression Analyses of The 2001 Salary Structure:
As we found for the 1995 data, we find that the 2001 data requires that we analyze
log of salary rather than raw salary. This transformation of the dependent variable
is made so as to meet the assumptions required for multiple regression analyses
more closely. For the 2001 data, we will simultaneously analyze for race/ethnicity
differences as well as gender differences. We will present the results for a
series of models. For each model, we computed the estimated coefficient for
gender and each of the four non-majority ethnic groups. In the information presented
below, we give detailed information only for gender differences. This is because
in no model (including the model adjusting for nothing) are any of the race/ethnic
coefficients statistically significant. This says that we are unable to find
any evidence of systematic differences between any of the race/ethnic groups
in terms of mean log salary. Table 5 contains the variables used to adjust the
log salary differences. Table 6 contains the results of the regression fitting.

Degree time, department, GMU time, rank, rank time, holding a specialist
degree, ever a dean

Table 6: Results of Model Fitting

Model

R2

Coef.

P-value

Percent Diff.

Dollar Diff.

1

0.10

-0.208

<.0001

+23.1%

+$14,948

2

0.33

-0.099

<.0001

+10.4%

+$6,741

3

0.70

-0.014

0.4342

+1.4%

+$928

4

0.70

-0.014

0.4374

+1.4%

+$922

5

0.83

-0.008

0.5859

+0.8%

+$494

6

0.83

-0.002

0.8766

+0.2%

+$141

7

0.84

+0.003

0.8239

-0.3%

-$194

8

0.84

+0.002

0.8663

-0.2%

-$147

We observe that once we adjust for experience and field of expertise (as proxied
by department), the coefficient for gender is not statistically significant.
The percent difference column shows that the estimated percent difference in
mean salary adjusted for the variables in each model. The dollar difference
shows the estimated difference in dollars per year that a female would make
if she were an equally qualified male, where equally qualified is defined by
the variables in that model. We see that the estimated differences are not at
all statistically significant for Models 3 through 8, and that the estimated
differences are positive for Models 3 to 6 but negative for Models 7 and 8.
In particular, Model 8 yields an estimated percent difference of only !0.2%,
which says that the model estimates a female would make 0.2% less were she an
equally qualified male, where equally qualified is determined by the variables
used in Model 8. This translates to a dollar difference of $147 per year of
salary in favor of females. (If we omit from Model 8 the explanatory variable
for “ever a dean,” we obtain an estimated dollar difference of $173
in favor of males.)

Of course, these estimates have a large margin for error. A 95% confidence interval
for the dollar difference in Model 8 goes from $1585 to $1833. This means that
we estimate that a female would make between $1585 more to $1833 less than an
equally qualified male. We really cannot say for sure which gender would make
more (if equally qualified) based on these data. Based on these data, we are
unable to conclude that there are systematic differences in salary between female
and male faculty members, nor between majority and any race/ethnic group.

Comparison of Faculty Members who are “Similarly Situated”:
We divided the database into groups based on department, rank, degree time,
GMU time, rank specific rank time, holding a specialist degree, and ever being
a dean. (The time variables were divided at their median.) This yielded 335
groups, of which 68 contained both male and female faculty members. For each
group with both male and female faculty members, the median log salary was calculated.
There were 32 groups where the female median was higher, 35 groups where the
male median was higher, and one group where there was a tie. Using a technique
called the “sign test,” we can evaluate these results. In a model
where salaries were assigned in a gender-neutral manner, we would not expect
every group to result in a tie, but we would not expect either males or females
to be ahead an inordinate amount of the time. Thus we evaluate the 32-35-1 in
terms of a model of flipping a fair coin 67 times. We find that the p-value
for these results is 0.8702. Based on these results, we are unable to conclude
that there are systematic differences in salary between female and male faculty
members.

Because there are not enough faculty members of any race/ethnic group to form
a reasonable number of comparison groups, we did not use this methodology to
analyze race/ethnic differences.

Summary:
We were unable to conclude that there are systematic differences in salary between
female and male faculty members, nor between majority and any race/ethnic group.
We discovered that the unadjusted salary differences have grown between 1995
and 2001, but that the growth in these differences is not attributable to differential
raises for the various groups.

Tasks Accomplished:
This year the Committee finally obtained a clean copy of salary data from the
administration so that serious analysis could begin. Summary information was
examined and analyses begun. The salary information for instructional faculty
appears to show that the University is in good shape from an equity standpoint.
The overall differences among the various gender/ethnic groups are small and
not statistically significant.

Tasks Planned for Next Year:
The Committee has already planned out a schedule of activities for next year.
These include the following:

1) Analyze data for research faculty. This will also be more difficult than
an analysis of instructional faculty because of the greater diversity in types
of appointment, duties, and other factors among research faculty.

2) Analyze data for contract faculty. This will be even more difficult than
an analysis of research faculty.

3) Propose a system for proactive salary review. This system would be implemented
by the administration to annually review faculty salaries with a goal of seeking
out faculty members whose salaries might receive an equity adjustment. The system
would not by itself allocate any adjustments. It would call to the attention
of administrative personnel salaries that are “outlying” in the
salary database. Appropriate administrative personnel would then review each
individual situation concerning a potential equity adjustment. This system can
neither be approved nor implemented by the Committee. The Committee (with the
approval of the Faculty Senate) will propose a system to the University Administration
for its consideration.

4) Obtain data from “peer” institutions so as to make some external
comparisons as well as internal comparisons of salary.

The Committee met four times during the academic year to discuss faculty needs
and interests related to technology policy decisions at GMU. Each semester the
Committee met twice with Joy Hughes, Vice President for Information Technology
and CIO. At the meetings, the committee presented the current and immediate
needs of faculty as well as future needs.

Issues discussed included: (1) difficulties related to scheduling electronic
classrooms, (2) need for improvement of environments in many "electronic"
and "smart" classrooms — especially in older buildings, (3)
possibilities for developing some instructional software through a consortium
of local universities — motivated by some popular software packages becoming
prohibitively
expensive, (4) providing additional and continuing input on the "layout"
of classrooms in Academic IV, (5) reducing SPAM, and (6) what additional features
are needed in the GMU e-mail system.

One outcome of the conversations with Dr. Hughes has been an increase in number
of faculty being asked to consult on a regular basis and serve on committees
that are planning tomorrow's "tech" environment. The Committee also
sent a letter to Dr. Merten asking that the University not cut funding related
to technology support and development. The Committee noted that such cuts would
make it very difficult for GMU to maintain a position of leadership as one of
the United States leading "wired" universities.

The Committee met five times during the academic year. We reviewed one course
and agreed that it met the requirements for a writing-intensive course in the
major. The other meetings centered on a review of how well various programs
were meeting the writing-intensive requirement. The Committee, through extensive
discussions, assisted the director of GMU's WAC program, T. Zawacki, in determining
how "writing profiles" can benefit individual programs, the university,
and the students.

During the summer of 2002, the committee will develop a procedure that will
provide a "quick" initial review of whether or not a course meets
the writing-intensive requirement. The Committee is developing procedures insuring
that courses to be reviewed in a timely manner.

Task Force on Intellectual Property – Brack Brown
Brack Brown reported to the Senate that the property a faculty member produces
could be owned by the University if significant University resources were used
to create it. Department Chairs will play a significant role in addressing conflicts
of
interest. The BOV currently signs off on conflicts of interest. This practice
does not exist in any other state.

Ad Hoc Committee on the Budget Interim Report
During the spring semester of 2002, the Faculty Senate and its Executive Committee
created the Ad Hoc Committee on the Budget to gather information about
the University’s pending budget crisis. This crisis was spawned by significant
reductions in the University’s operating budget for AY 2002-03 by the
Virginia General Assembly in March of 2002. In May of 2002, GMU Board of Visitors
responded to the crisis by approving a tuition increase that erased most of
the shortfall. The administration implemented additional internal actions to
erase the remaining operating budget shortfall for AY 2002-03. Thus, by the
end of the spring semester, the high level of anxiety generated by the pending
budget crisis within the university community had subsided.

However, the Ad Hoc Committee on the Budget continues to be concerned
about how the University will respond to the additional operating budget reductions
that the General Assembly has planned for AY 2003-04 and AY 2004-05. The
magnitude of these reductions is in the range of seven to eight percent per
year, and is compounded upon the reductions implemented for AY 2002-03. Therefore,
the Committee anticipates that it will not complete the work necessary to achieve
its charge for several years. Furthermore, the Committee anticipates that the
need for faculty input in the University’s budgeting process will increase
dramatically as additional budget reductions are implemented.

During its deliberations this spring, the Committee concluded that the University’s
administration adequately managed the budget reductions for AY 2002-03. However,
the decision-making process for responding to this year’s budget reductions
was largely limited to the central administration and Deans of the various schools
and colleges. Since such budget reductions will undoubtedly have a severe impact
on the delivery of our academic programs, shared governance and common sense
require that the process be modified to guarantee faculty input in this decision-making
process ab initio. The Committee discovered that an informal budget
committee, comprised of central administrators (M. Scherrens, D. Kidd, D. Rossell,
and T. Hennessey), regularly identifies budget trends and issues which may require
action. This group also advises the President and Provost on such matters, including
the formulation of procedures and possible plans of action for dealing with
significant budget issues. Therefore, the Committee makes the following two
recommendations to the Senates Executive Committee:

1) That the Senate Chair appoints a member of the Senate as soon as feasible
to participate in and represent the GMU Faculty at the meetings of this informal
budget committee. Furthermore, that this representative is charged with keeping
the Executive Committee and Senate informed about the budgeting issues and processes
which may affect academic programs and delivery thereof.

2) That the Senate Chair initiate regular meetings between the Senate Executive
Committee and Executive V.P. Scherrens to enhance communications with the Faculty
about important budget trends and issues which may affect academic programs
and the delivery thereof.

The Committee has discussed and continues to ponder additional recommendations
to the Executive Committee. These discussions will continue and new discussions
will be initiated as the Committee continues it work.